UNASSIGNED: Dosimetric and radiobiological evaluations for the Jaws-only Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (JO-IMRT) technique for head and neck jaws-only intensity-modulated radiation therapy (JO-IMRT) and 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). To compare the head-and-neck therapeutic approaches utilizing JO-IMRT and 3D-CRT techniques, different radiation dose indices were calculated, including: conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and radiobiological variables like Niemierko\'s equivalent uniform dose based tumor control probability (TCP) of planning target volume (PTV), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of organs at risk (OAR) (brainstem, spinal cord, and parotid grand).
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-five nasopharynx patients were studied using the Prowess Panther Treatment Planning System (Prowess Inc). The results were compared with the dose distribution obtained using 3D-CRT.
UNASSIGNED: Regarding tumor coverage and CI, JO-IMRT showed better results than 3D-CRT. The average doses received by the PTVs were quite similar: 72.1 ± 0.8 Gy by 3D-CRT and 72.5 ± 0.6 Gy by JO-IMRT plans (p > 0.05). The mean doses received by the parotid gland were 56.7 ± 0.7 Gy by 3D-CRT and 26.8 ± 0.3 Gy by JO-IMRT (p > 0.05). The HI and CI were 0.13 ± 0.01 and 0.14 ± 0.05 and (p > 0.05) by 3D-CRT and 0.83 ± 0.05 and 0.73 ± 0.10 by JO-IMRT (p < 0.05). The average TCP of PTV was 0.82 ± 0.08 by 3D-CRT and 0.92 ± 0.02 by JO-IMRT. Moreover, the NTCP of the parotid glands, brain stem, and spinal cord were lower using the JO-IMRT than 3D-CRT plans. In comparison to the 3D-CRT approach, the JO-IMRT technique was able to boost dose coverage to the PTV, improve the target\'s CI and HI, and spare the parotid glands. This suggests the power of the JO-IMRT over 3D-CRT in head-and-neck radiotherapy.

The use of passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT) or intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) opens the potential for dose escalation or critical structure sparing in thoracic malignancies. While the latter offers greater dose conformality, dose distributions are subjected to greater uncertainties, especially due to interplay effects. Exploration in this area is warranted to determine if there is any dosimetric advantages in using IMPT for thoracic malignancies. This review aims to both compare organs-at-risk sparing and plan robustness between PSPT and IMPT and examine the mitigation strategies for the reduction of interplay effects currently available. Early evidence suggests that IMPT is dosimetrically superior to PSPT in thoracic malignancies. Randomised control trials are required before any clinical benefit of IMPT can be confirmed.

OBJECTIVE: To use Monte Carlo (MC) together with voxel phantoms to analyze the tissue heterogeneity effect in the dose distributions and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for (125)I prostate implants.
BACKGROUND: Dose distribution calculations in low dose-rate brachytherapy are based on the dose deposition around a single source in a water phantom. This formalism does not take into account tissue heterogeneities, interseed attenuation, or finite patient dimensions effects. Tissue composition is especially important due to the photoelectric effect.
METHODS: The computed tomographies (CT) of two patients with prostate cancer were used to create voxel phantoms for the MC simulations. An elemental composition and density were assigned to each structure. Densities of the prostate, vesicles, rectum and bladder were determined through the CT electronic densities of 100 patients. The same simulations were performed considering the same phantom as pure water. Results were compared via dose-volume histograms and EUD for the prostate and rectum.
RESULTS: The mean absorbed doses presented deviations of 3.3-4.0% for the prostate and of 2.3-4.9% for the rectum, when comparing calculations in water with calculations in the heterogeneous phantom. In the calculations in water, the prostate D 90 was overestimated by 2.8-3.9% and the rectum D 0.1cc resulted in dose differences of 6-8%. The EUD resulted in an overestimation of 3.5-3.7% for the prostate and of 7.7-8.3% for the rectum.
CONCLUSIONS: The deposited dose was consistently overestimated for the simulation in water. In order to increase the accuracy in the determination of dose distributions, especially around the rectum, the introduction of the model-based algorithms is recommended.